Prince Andrew is named in "sex slave" ring

[Magda Hassan]

The presence of any one's name in the book does not prove they too are a paedophile. But it might and their names are currently being placed in a data base to explore such links. This is his personal address book after all. Some may also be his blackmail victims. This possibility also needs to be explored. It also reflects poorly on their choice of friend considering many should know better.

[Peter Lemkin]

The presence of any one's name in the book does not prove they too are a paedophile. But it might and their names are currently being placed in a data base to explore such links. This is his personal address book after all. Some may also be his blackmail victims. This possibility also needs to be explored. It also reflects poorly on their choice of friend considering many should know better.

I would guess that most in his black book are NOT pedophiles, but just sex customers or potential customers. Some could be blackmail victims or potential victims......but on the surface it seems many were very friendly with him and freely gave their phone contacts and had at some times used his services or attended his 'parties'. Some sound like Berlisconi's Bunga-Bunga parties. Hey, this kind of thing went on in Ancient Rome too...and before and since. With power and money comes the idea that anything can be had for your whim with a little cash....and there is always someone to handle the details. Many may not have requested nor been told the age of a particular partner...just shown a photo or introduced. Most probably didn't care if they met their 'fancy'. In a capitalistic society, rich capitalists feel it is their right to buy whatever they desire...and they apparently did....not caring or thinking much of the consequences or legal ramifications. The nasty bits to me are not that someone was a year or two under age [where they might be of age in another jurisdiction], but that some were FORCED to have sex or do sexual favors - that is the nasty part to me!

[David Guyatt]

Yes, I agree, being in Epstein's black book simply means he knows them. He was, apparently, very worried that the book would be published, so there are names there he doesn't want made public it seems.

The thing about the paedophile story in the UK that many will miss, is that were everything to be made public, the country will very likely be brought to its knees, such is the depth of stink and criminality surrounding it. For one thing it shows that those who rule the nation are depraved. For another, it reveals that many great movers and shakers, from Buckingham Palace down through the intelligence and security services, the police parliament, law, order and the judiciary (a great many judges are involved too) manipulate the law to protect themselves.

They are, effectively, above the law. The realization of this by the public would have lasting consequences. In Belgium, following the Dutroux scandal, the government was slung out of office by the people marching - and for 18 months Belgium had no government at all. It ran fairly effectively without one too.

These things filter through the public mind slowly, but also entrench themselves there.

The question, should the lid be dragged off this sewer, is why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by criminals and perverts who trample on the things we hold dear, and use their positions of power to enrich themselves at our expense, lie to us daily, subvert the law and secrets act to protect themselves and their dodgy dealings?

[David Guyatt]

As an aside, in checking Aangirfan today I was reminded about Prince Andrew's almost certainly true bloodline.

Scallywag was a hard hitting magazine of its day and very often got things bang to rights - although it lost a notorious defamation case that destroyed its credibility. But the Pirnce Andrew story was run in a hour long documentary on English TV a long time ago. I watched it at the time. And Porchester was outed as Andrew's father at that time.

[Magda Hassan]

I see McAlpine is listed in Epstein's book.

::

[David Guyatt]

I have no idea how accurate National Enquirer is - it looks like a sensational type publication to me, but either way this isn;t going to help Prince Andrew's denials...

Prince Andrew's Viral Video of Sex Slave Scandal With Underage Girl Caught On Tape (PHOTO)

BY SIYANA RILEY ON JANUARY 28, 2015 | 5 COMMENTS
RELATED : HOT NEWS, PRINCE ANDREW, TABLOID WEDNESDAY, THE ROYALS
If things weren't bad enough for the royals, Prince Andrew's romp in the hay with the young, underage girl he allegedly paid to have sex with is about to go viral on video. The National Enquirer has a screenshot from a video allegedly showing Andrew having sex with this girl. Apparently, billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a.k.a. the mastermind behind this whole disgusting enterprise might have been secretly filming Prince Andrew and other high-profile men having sex with this girl [and possibly others] in order to blackmail them later. Or he was just a pervert and watched them, who really knows?Anyway, the Enquirer's sources claim that the FBI have seized at least four tapes from Jeffrey Epstein's home, one of which allegedly shows Prince Andrew having sex with the then-underage Virginia Roberts. Apparently, Epstein actually kept hidden cameras in the home that Virginia Roberts and Prince Andrew had sex in, with sources adding, "Several images of Epstein working at his office were seen. There was other footage of females seen."Plus, Virginia Roberts herself is reportedly insisting that there were hidden cameras and recording devices in several of the places that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, which means it was very likely that Jeffrey Epstein was recording more than just Prince Andrew.But imagine this gets out? The royals will literally NEVER live it down. And it WILL get out, especially if the FBI has already seized the videos and some content has already leaked. Something this high-profile and that would be so damaging to the royal family? People will turn out in droves to pay for it and/or read about it and/or watch it online. Prince Andrew better start getting used to the shame and notoriety.What do you guys think? Will Prince Andrew's sex video end up leaking? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

[Magda Hassan]

Constitutional Crisis

I first became aware that there may be a problem on 7th January when a source, who we'll call Steve' contacted me with an extraordinary story. The Queen, he told me, had been unwell and it looked likely that Prince Charles might become Prince Regent and take over the Queen's constitutional duties. However, there was a big problem. There were many within the Establishment who had grave concerns that Prince Charles was too political and would interfere in government policy and so I should view the big Prince Andrew/Jeffrey Epstein stories in The Daily Mail, which at the time had just begun, in the context of this. If Prince Charles did not make a "deal" soon then there would be further revelations in the media.
I was intrigued enough at the time to contact a friend of mine who is a senior journalists, someone I can talk too and I recounted what I had been told. My friend, far from pouring cold water on the entire idea, felt that there were elements of the story which were very plausible and so we both agreed to look into this.
I should say here, that neither he nor I found any evidence that the Queen had health problems beyond a few stories in unreliable American supermarket magazines and I'm now certain that this is untrue but in reality that point is moot. At 89 year's old, it is an extremely big ask for the general public to expect Her Majesty to continue to undertake her constitutional duties far into the future.
We are accustomed to believe that the monarchy is only symbolic but that is not the case. It is only when situations like this arise that it becomes clear that the Head of State is an extremely important cog in the UKs constitutional machine, without which the machine simply stops working. The fact is that the Head of State signs every piece of legislation into law and if, for whatever reason, the Head of State is unable to fulfil those duties with due consideration, potentially, theoretically any legislation that might be signed could be legally challenged and that would be an extremely serious situation for the country to arrive at.
Yesterday I think we saw a further public escalation of this constitutional crisis as, the The Times, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail all published stories which, to varying degrees and justified by a soon to be published official' biography of Prince Charles, began to lay before the public the concerns that have been bubbling behind the scenes but I fear that we are so used to categorising Royal Stories' as trivial that many might not have understood the seriousness of situation. Plainly, this escalation indicates that no "deal" has been reached as yet.
Not only did we learn more of the concerns that many have, that Prince Charles if he became Prince Regent or King would continue to interfere in politics, not only did we learn of his apparent obstinacy and unwillingness to accept that the role of the Head of State in a modern constitutional democracy must be above politics, we also learned something about the future revelations which could be interpreted as further escalations in this crisis.
A decision by the Supreme Court is due on whether, what has been termed, the black spider memos' will be made pubic. These memos are 27 letters exchanged between Prince Charles and ministers in seven Whitehall departments during Tony Blair's second Government between September 2004 and April 2005. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General had argued that they should not be made public, observing that the documents could show Charles to be "disagreeing with Government policy" and thus be "seriously damaging" to the political neutrality expected of the monarch.
If these documents are released and they demonstrate a political interference beyond Prince Charles' known interests in environmental issues, the plight of hill farmers, and architecture and instead demonstrate interference in matters which touch on issues that are the preserve of a democratically elected government, then, as Dominic Grieve pointed out it could be extremely damaging to Prince Charles.
Soon after this Supreme Court decision a BBC documentary is due to be broadcast regarding Diana. It is said that this documentary if broadcast would be extremely damaging to Prince Charles' prospects of succeeding his mother to the throne.
Both of these two events, if they occur, could be regarded as further escalations in this ongoing constitutional crisis if a "deal" isn't struck soon.
But here is the problem; how can any "deal" be struck? How can anyone be certain that if Prince Charles become Regent or King that he will keep to his side of any "deal"?
I am not wealthy or powerful, I am not a politician, or a civil servant, and I'm not a royal courtier or a newspaper editor. I am just an ordinary person and I can see many things that are wrong with our country, a broken political system, increasing inequality, and political priorities that only look after the interests of those with power. But the People of this country have the rights and power necessary to address these and other issues if the have the courage to do so. What the People need is not a King or Regent that interferes in government policy, what the People need is stability and an impartial Head of State who shows no favour.
We'll have to wait and see how all this plays out but I hope some accommodation can be found. If not Charles really could turn out to be an extremely unlucky name for a King.

[David Guyatt]

More on the story that won't go away...

Prince Andrew sex allegations: Virginia Roberts claims FBI has videos of her underage sex with Jeffrey Epstein and 'powerful friends'



Ms Roberts also claims she feared for her life during the allegedly abusive 'sexual activities I was forced to endure'

ADAM WITHNALL

Sunday 08 February 2015

The woman at the centre of the underage sex allegations against Prince Andrew has said she believes the FBI holds video evidence of her having sex with Jeffrey Epstein and "some of his powerful friends".

In a sworn statement in the US courts, Virginia Roberts revealed this week that she believes Epstein "maintained videos in some rooms where I had sex with other powerful people" and that "some kind of major cover-up is going on to protect" the billionaire financier.
Now 31 years old, Ms Roberts has claimed that when she was 17 she was forced to have sex with Epstein and a number of his friends while she was his "sex slave". The age of consent is 18 in Florida, where two unnamed women are petitioning for Epstein to be prosecuted.
Among the friends and associates she claims to have had sex with is Prince Andrew. She said she had sex three times with the prince while she was aged 17.
Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace have stridently and repeatedly denied the claims. Two weeks ago, speaking at Davos, he reiterated the denial and said: "My focus is my work."
Jeffrey Epstein, multi-millionaire and ex-banker who was sentenced to 18 months in prisonIn a sworn affidavit filed with the US district court in southern Florida, Ms Roberts said she wanted to be allowed to become part of the case for possible prosecution against Epstein "and others who abused underage girls".
She said: "Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organization, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends."
Ms Roberts also claimed that she feared coming forward before now in part due to the "physical abuse that I suffered when Epstein forced me to have sex with other people".
"Without going into the details of the sexual activities I was forced to endure, there were times when I was physically abused to the point that I remember fearfully thinking that I didn't know whether I was going to survive," she said.




She added that she believed the government was "hiding some of the things that it knows about me and about other powerful people involved in this case", and said: "I am also worried that this is a very dangerous circuit. By standing up for what is right, I'm worried that Epstein, or others named here, will come after me."
Epstein's lawyers have repeatedly denied Ms Roberts' claims, and did so again in a recent filing that described them "as outlandish and offensive attacks, allegations and plain inventions".
The financier was convicted in 2008 of one count of soliciting sex from an underage girl and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Mr Epstein only served 13 months in jail before before being released and forced to register as a sex offender. It has been alleged that Mr Epstein received special treatment from US prosecutor after lobbying from Prince Andrew, something Buckingham Palace has also denied.

[Magda Hassan]

Media Quiet On Harvey Proctor Police Search.

Isn't it quiet ?
Since Exaro News published the story last night I can only find the story on the BBC.
Somehow you'd have thought that the search of the home of a former Conservative MP in connection with a police operation looking into the murder of 3 children might be a story ?

The home of former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor has been searched by police investigating historical allegations of child abuse.
The BBC understands police arrived at the 68-year-old's house on the estate of Belvoir Castle, in Leicestershire, on Wednesday.
The Metropolitan Police said officers from Operation Midland were searching an address in Grantham.
Mr Proctor has not made any statement.

BBC News

Perhaps the silence could be due to the fact that the home searched was on the Duke and Duchess of Rutland's estate at Belvoir Castle ?

There has been some speculation about the relationship between the Duke of Rutland and Harvey Proctor since we published The Maxwells, Harvey Proctor, And The Marquis Of Granby' We couldn't possibly comment but I think it is fair to point out that the Duke and Duchess of Rutland no longer have physical relations. Aparently the Duke has someone else to take care of those needs who lives on the estate.

The aristocracy have always been inventive when their marriages break down. They can afford to be. A blind eye here, an understanding there, a delicate readjustment of room space to conduct their separate lives while maintaining the fiction of harmonious family life.
However, nothing so smotheringly conventional was ever going to do for the Duke and Duchess of Rutland who, at the weekend, made public their own solution to the challenges of infidelity: after 20 years of marriage, they are now living in different wings of their colossal gothic castle at Belvoir, each able to entertain a lover without undue embarrassment and to come together for occasional family meals with their five children.
"It is a situation that many might find difficult, or impossible, to fathom," wrote Emma Rutland in a lengthy, confessional article in a Sunday newspaper.

The Telegraph

Also worth checking out is the amusingly titled article Duke Drops His Drawbridge for Harvey Proctor' . "FROM cottages to castles" it begins. I wonder what they could be suggesting ?

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015...or-search/

[R.K. Locke]

Ed Opperman and Pearse Redmond on Jeffrey Epstein:

http://porkinspolicyreview.com/2015/08/2...tein-case/